United States v. Culpepper ( 2022 )

Case: 21-40320 Document: 00516207006 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/17/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 17, 2022
No. 21-40320
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jennifer Lynn Culpepper,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CR-266-2
Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Following a jury trial, Jennifer Lynn Culpepper was convicted of
conspiracy to possess with intent to manufacture and distribute 500 grams or
more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of
methamphetamine or 50 grams or more of methamphetamine (actual). She
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-40320 Document: 00516207006 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/17/2022
No. 21-40320
was sentenced to 121 months of imprisonment, followed by five years of
supervised release. Culpepper now appeals, asserting that there was
insufficient evidence to support her conviction and that certain extraneous
offense evidence was admitted in error.
Because Culpepper failed to renew her motion for a judgment of
acquittal at the close of all the evidence, she has not preserved her
sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim for appeal, and it is reviewed for a
“manifest miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Davis, 690 F.3d 330, 336
(5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Although
Culpepper contends that she did not know of the methamphetamine
conspiracy and did not voluntarily participate in it, the record is not devoid
of evidence pointing to her guilt, nor is the evidence “so tenuous that a
conviction is shocking.” United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320, 331 (5th Cir.
2012) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Culpepper also asserts that the district court erred in admitting
extrinsic evidence of her marijuana transactions pursuant to Federal Rule of
Evidence 404(b). Culpepper objected to the admission of this evidence in
the district court. Although we generally review evidentiary rulings for abuse
of discretion, a heightened standard applies where, as here, the evidence is
admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). See United States v.
Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 493 (5th Cir. 2014).
Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) provides that evidence of “any other
crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order
to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the
character.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1). Such evidence may be admissible,
however, to prove “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,
knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” Fed. R.
Evid. 404(b)(2). To determine whether such evidence was properly
2
Case: 21-40320 Document: 00516207006 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/17/2022
No. 21-40320
admitted, this court first determines whether the extrinsic offense evidence
is relevant to an issue other than the defendant’s character; second, the court
determines whether the probative value is substantially outweighed by undue
prejudice. United States v. Gurrola, 898 F.3d 524, 537 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing
United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 911 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc)).
The district court correctly determined that the first prong of the test
was satisfied because Culpepper disputed her intent and knowledge
concerning the methamphetamine conspiracy. See, e.g., United States v.
Cockrell, 587 F.3d 674, 679 (5th Cir. 2009). In addition, the district court did
not abuse its discretion by determining that the probative value of the
evidence of Culpepper’s marijuana transactions was not substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See Beechum, 582 F.2d at 914.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3